DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (CN-105884452-A) with evidence from Ismail (Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka, 1983).
In regard to claim 39, Sun teaches a method of enhancing the early growth of rice (e.g. rice seeds sown directed in pots) [para. 0027] comprising:
applying a whole rice seed grind to a rice seed (e.g. rice seeds sown) [0027] in an amount to enhance growth of a rice seedling from the rice seed (e.g. rice treated with bio-fertilizer exhibits weight comparable to treatment with chemical fertilizer) [0031], wherein the whole rice seed grind (e.g. rice flour) [paras. 0018-0020] is applied to a soil (e.g. plastic pots filled with soil) [0027].
The fertilizer product of Sun is applied at a rate of 30 to 50 kg per mu [0026]. The seeds are grown in a 10 cm diameter pot (e.g. 0.00001178 mu) [0027]. The rice flour is present in an amount of approximately 58% of the bio-fertilizer (e.g. rice flour is added at a ratio of 10:1 in the preparation of the granules and the granules are mixed with the biomass at a mass ratio of 1.8:1) [0020-0022]. Thus, at the rate disclosed by Sun, the rice seed grind is considered applied in an amount of about 0.2065324675 g – 0.34422 g (58% of 30-50 kg / mu * 0.00001178 mu). Each pot ultimately contained 10 rice plants [0027]. Where the average weight of a rice seed is considered 0.0221 g/grain [Ismail, pg. 96, section 4.1], each pot contains about 0.221 g of the seed. Thus, Sun is considered to teach an amount of 934 grams (g) of the whole rice seed grind per kilogram (kg) of the seed to 1,558 g of the whole rice seed grind per kg of the seed. These values and the reduced values [0027] lie within the claimed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 11-12, 14, 16-17, 19-20, 22, 24-25, 27, 31, 33-35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 106234124-A) as evidenced by FloraVeg (2022), regarding claim 1.
In regard to claim 1, Pan discloses a method in Example 1 of enhancing the early growth of plants (e.g. promote the growth of plant roots and new shoots) [para. 0035] comprising:
applying a whole seed grind (e.g. cornmeal) [0035] to a seed (e.g. before plum seedlings sprout) [0035] in an amount to enhance growth of a seedling from the seed (e.g. promote the growth of plant roots and new shoots) [0035],
wherein the whole seed grind is applied to a soil in an amount of 17% of a fertilizer composition applied at 0.4-0.6 kg per seed [0035]. Where the weight of a Prunus salicina seed is 784.45 mg [FloraVeg], this equates to about 76,786 grams (g) of the whole seed grind per (kg) of the seed to 114,730 g of the whole seed grind per kg of the seed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
In regard to claim 4, Pan discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a source of bicarbonate (e.g. ammonium bicarbonate) to the soil in an amount of 10,198 g of the source of bicarbonate per kg of the seed to 15,297 g of the source of bicarbonate per kg of the seed (e.g. 2% of a fertilizer composition applied at 0.4-0.6 kg per seed) [0035], where the weight of a Prunus salicina seed is 784.45 mg [FloraVeg]) [0035], which lies inside the claimed range.
In regard to claims 7, and 31, Pan discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the source of bicarbonate is ammonium bicarbonate [0035].
In regard to claim 11, Pan discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the seed is corn seed (e.g. cornmeal) [0035].
In regard to claim 12, Pan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the ground whole seed grind is formed from corn seed (e.g. cornmeal) [0035].
In regard to claim 27, Pan discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the seed grind is 5% to 100% by weight of a plant promoter that is applied to the soil (e.g. 17% of a pre-flowering fertilizer applied to soil) [0035].
In regard to claim 33, Pan discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a source of sugar (e.g. wheat bran) to the soil [0035].
In regard to claim 34, Pan discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising applying a source of urea (e.g. chicken manure and urea) [0035-0036].
In regard to claims 35 and 37, Pan discloses the method according to claims 33 and 34, further comprising applying the whole seed grind, urea and source of sugar to the soil or hydroponic medium of a seed or seedling of a plant grown from a seed in an amount from 200 g of the whole seed grind, 1000 g of urea and 100 g of the source of sugar per kg of the seed to 75,000 g of the whole seed grind, 20,000 g of urea and 75,000 g of the source of sugar per kg of the seed (e.g. 86.7-130,027 kilogram (kg) of the whole seed grind, less than 89,234 g of urea, and less than 76,486 g of the source of sugar, depending on the urea content and sugar content of chicken manure and wheat bran) [0035]. These values overlap the claimed ranges.
In regard to claims 14 and 16, Pan discloses a method in Example 1 of enhancing the early growth of plants (e.g. promote the growth of plant roots and new shoots) [para. 0035] comprising:
applying a whole seed grind (e.g. cornmeal) [0035] to a seed (e.g. before plum seedlings sprout) [0035] in an amount to enhance growth of a seedling from the seed (e.g. promote the growth of plant roots and new shoots) [0035],
PNG
media_image1.png
250
313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the whole seed grind is applied to a soil in an amount of 17% of a fertilizer composition applied at 0.4-0.6 kg per seed [0035] and the seeds are planted at a spacing between plants from 2-3 m [0007]. Thus, one of skill would understand planting occurs at, as illustrated below, for example at 16 seeds / 36 – 81 m2 (e.g. 0.0036 – 0.0081 hectare).
Thus, the seed grind is considered applied to soil in an amount of from 134 kilogram (kg) of the whole seed grind per hectare to 453 kg of the whole seed grind per hectare [0035] which at least overlaps or lies inside the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
In regard to claims 17 and 19, Pan discloses the method according to claims 14 and 16, further comprising applying a source of bicarbonate (e.g. ammonium bicarbonate) to the soil in an amount of from about 15.8 kilogram (kg) of the source of bicarbonate per hectare to 1,031 kg of the source of bicarbonate per hectare [0035-0036] which overlaps with the claimed range.
In regard to claims 20 and 22, Pan discloses the method according to claims 17 and 19, wherein a source of bicarbonate is ammonium bicarbonate [0035].
In regard to claim 24, Pan discloses method according to claim 14, wherein the seed is corn seed (e.g. cornmeal) [0035].
In regard to claim 25, Pan discloses the method according to claim 14, wherein the ground whole seed grind is formed from corn seed (e.g. cornmeal) [0035].
Claims 8, 29-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 106234124-A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ming et al. (US Patent No. 5,433,766).
In regard to claims 8, 29-30 and 32, Pan does not explicitly recite wherein the bicarbonate is potassium bicarbonate sodium bicarbonate.
Ming et al. is directed to water soluble agronutrients used the preparation of a slow-release fertilizer [col. 4, lines 63-43]. Examples of suitable water soluble carbonate compounds include sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium bicarbonate, potassium carbonate and potassium bicarbonate [col. 6, lines 51-55]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute or combine the bicarbonate component(s) recited in Pan for another suitable water-soluble carbonate such as potassium or sodium bicarbonate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of these carbonate/bicarbonate sources within the composition of Pan.
Claims 10, 23, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 106234124-A) as applied to claims 1, 14, 35 and 37, respectively above, and further in view of Nutrient Stewardship (2020).
In regard to claims 10, 23, 36 and 38, Pan discloses a pre-flowering fertilizer applied before or when the seed or seedling is planted and a post-flowering fertilizer and fruit-promoting fertilizer [0035-0037] does not explicitly disclose wherein the seed grind/urea is applied as a split application with a portion applied before or when the seed or seedling is planted and another portion applied later.
Nutrient Stewardship is directed to split nitrogen fertilizer applications as a strategy for nutrient management [pg. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Pan’s fertilizer composition as a split application as described by Nutrient Stewardship. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because dividing fertilizer applications into two or more treatments can help growers enhance nutrient efficiency, promote optimum yields and mitigate the loss of nutrients [pg. 2, first para.].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 106234124-A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Isleib (Michigan State, 2016).
In regard to claim 28, Pan does not explicitly recite wherein in the seed grind, source of bicarbonate and other components are added to the soil in the form of granules or tablets.
Isleib is directed to granular and liquid fertilizers. Dry fertilizers are generally incorporated into granules [pg. 1, 2nd para.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate Pan’s fertilizer composition in the form of granules or tablet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because granule fertilizers are cheaper in bulk, easier to store, more efficient for heavy applications and have slow-release options) [Isleib, pg. 2, last para.]. Furthermore, Pan discloses a composition consisting of essentially biodegradable components. Biodegradable is interpreted to mean decomposition of at least 90% into carbon dioxide (CO2), biomass and water in a maximum of 48 months [Specification 0063].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues (pg. 7) the Sun reference does not disclose “whole rice seed grind” as required by claim 39. In response to this argument, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation “whole rice seed grind” is considered to be taught by Sun’s disclosure 糯米粉 (translated to glutinous rice flour) in paras. 0018-0020 where the BRI of this phrase is a particulate, flour, meal or ground mass produced by mechanically reducing rice seeds. Applicant’s arguments appear to reference a brown rice seed grind which is not recited in the claims.
In response to applicant's arguments against the Ismail reference individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection of claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claim(s).
Applicant’s remarks regarding the Pan reference (pgs. 9-11), filed 08/28/2026 are a substantial duplicate of Remarks previously filed 04/15/2026 and 04/29/2025. These arguments were fully responded to in the Office Action dated 05/19/2025 (pgs. 10-11) and will not be repeated herein.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 04/15/2026 was insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims for the reasons previously presented in the Office Action dated 04/29/2026 (pgs. 13-14).
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Baidu “Water-milled glutinous rice flour” describing glutinous rice soaked overnight, then ground finely with a stone mortar or stone mill into a slurry, air-dried, and then made into wet flour [pg. 1, 2nd para.]
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is (571)270-3599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights